OpinionCutting a tree down should be viewed as an economic loss, not gain. Skip to page 78 for the pertinent bit: http://www.howies.co.uk/content.php?xId=653&dm_i=6IA,1X0R,L3APB,64JY,1
      – Thelevellers, 2009-09-14 at 17:28:56   (5 comments)

On 2009-09-14 at 17:29:24, Thelevellers wrote...
Well, as they column says, it's a silly stupid idea, but it is nonetheless a valid point...
On 2009-09-14 at 18:10:55, Lee J Haywood wrote...
A tree's value depends not on its nature but on its location. If it's in the way of a sugar plantation, then it will be removed to make way. If it's in a rainforest, then it's valuable to hippies but not to corporations. Trees are mostly valuable in the short term if they provide shelter and reduce erosion, and long-term value is ignored. As individuals, humans say that we'd rather trees not be cut down but as a group we just don't care.
On 2009-09-15 at 01:35:49, DigitalBoss wrote...
You libs should know that it is all about sustainability; trees are a sustainable resource, they grow back.
On 2009-09-15 at 17:07:17, Thelevellers wrote...
Yes they do grow back, but they are not often re-planted at all, let alone re-planted in the same place, and that is what the column is kinda saying - it's all about where tree's are as to what functions they provide. Also it takes years (up to 50-100-300) to replace some tree cover, as there is the side effect of the biodiverse area supported by the trees that is destroyed at the same time as the tree(s)...
On 2009-09-16 at 10:13:35, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Trees don't grow back when humans continually keep them from doing so.